Letters to the editor 3/20

Social programs aren't charity, they're earned

Following a week of car problems from the very bowels of Hades, I suddenly found myself with exactly $12.93 to last me until the arrival of my next Social Security Disability check.

Yes, I'm happily enmeshed in those allegedly evil tentacles of big government that include Medicaid, Medicare and food stamps, plus blessed with a dedicated case manager and mental-health professional.

In other words, Mr. Romney, my safety net saved me once again.

Maybe the Koch boys could have floated me a loan, but what could I give them in return? I'm neither a GOP presidential wannabe, Fox News empty talking head or K-Street lobbyist.

When the idea of going on Social Security Disability was first broached to me, during a time in my life that gave the expression "the pits" new meaning, I balked - no charity for this guy, no way.

Then I realized I wasn't getting a handout, but my own money, which I'd earned over decades at various jobs.

Thanks to Medicaid and Medicare my mental, physical and even dental health are stabilized. I realize the GOP may want me to hide in shame, but sorry, you guys ain't walked a yard in my shoes.

If you or your family are on any necessary social program and you intend to vote Republican, heed my words: You're not voting against President Obama, you're voting against yourself.

Larry Robinson

Wappingers Falls

Report on stun guns should open some eyes

I want to commend the Poughkeepsie Journal for its excellent reporting on the use of stun guns by our area's law enforcement ("Taser use soars - inflicting pain, raising questions," Feb. 12, "Shocked over and over: Taser uses, policies skirt guidelines", Feb. 20). Stun guns are a great tool for situations that would otherwise call for shooting people, and they are an arguably better alternative for situations that would otherwise require beating people with nightsticks; but what the Journal's reporting makes clear is that some law enforcement agencies in the area, like other agencies across the country, have far more permissive policies when it comes to their use. Such policies are troubling.

But when a law enforcement agency allows its officers to shock people into submission for their mere "failure to comply with a lawful order," what kind of policing does that encourage? Safety is one issue; convenience and brute authoritarianism is an entirely different one.

"Shock first and ask questions later" has no place anywhere in the United States of America.

The Journal's reporting points out that stun gun use begs for stricter oversight and policies more consistent with the ideals of a free society.

Mario Diana

Poughquag

Journal should ax Malkin's column

Is there any way you can refrain from supporting columnist Michelle Malkin's negativism? My heart just goes "oh, no" when I see that you have published another one of her columns. It is beyond sad that a person can constantly dedicate oneself to such diatribes "against," rather than encouraging the populace with what is good out there. I am sick and tired of her.

Nancy Vialpando

Millerton

ADVERTISEMENT

Most Popular

Most Commented

More Headlines

Most Viewed

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

Email this article

Letters to the editor 3/20

Following a week of car problems from the very bowels of Hades, I suddenly found myself with exactly $12.93 to last me until the arrival of my next Social Security Disability check.